AuthorTopic: Fox News? (Read 22271 times)

jgruber

I'm sorry...did I miss a fact that can't be verified? Were we not attacked on Sept. 11th? Are we not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Can you verify that we were attacked by the Iraqis on 9/11? In other words, can you verify that we are in fact finishing the fight that started in New York by fighting in Iraq? The Bush administration hasn't been able to and has stopped trying.

The fighting in Iraq is based on Saddaam NOT cooperating with the sanctions put in place by the UN back in the early 90's. He was given ample opportunity to prove that he was not a threat and did not have WMDs, but he let his big head get in the way and refused to do so. With the US just recently being attacked, George Bush took the initiative that Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to and PREVENTED Saddaam from attacking us or anyone else. Keep in mind, this man wiped out 300,000 people with WMD. What was stopping him from doin the same to us? George Bush..that's who. If you'll remember, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madaam "Notsobright" and there entire crew all agreed that Saddaam was a threat to our nation's security, had and was trying to get more WMDs and must be removed from power. Did any of those liberals actually DO anything about it? NO. Why? Because as always, a democraps bark is worse than it's bite.

Logged

The ability to reason is a magnificant thing. The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

The fighting in Iraq is based on Saddaam NOT cooperating with the sanctions put in place by the UN back in the early 90's. He was given ample opportunity to prove that he was not a threat and did not have WMDs, but he let his big head get in the way and refused to do so. With the US just recently being attacked, George Bush took the initiative that Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to and PREVENTED Saddaam from attacking us or anyone else. Keep in mind, this man wiped out 300,000 people with WMD. What was stopping him from doin the same to us? George Bush..that's who. If you'll remember, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madaam "Notsobright" and there entire crew all agreed that Saddaam was a threat to our nation's security, had and was trying to get more WMDs and must be removed from power. Did any of those liberals actually DO anything about it? NO. Why? Because as always, a democraps bark is worse than it's bite.

I linked an attack on America to Aghanistan and Iraq because Iraq posed an imminent threat. I would be willing to bet that if it came out that we knew that the Afghan's were planning an attack on America and we didn't go over there and stop them, that people would be in an uproar. It's the same thing in Iraq. The "war" in Iraq is preventative measure. I put war in quotes because congress has yet to actually declare it a war..and that's a whole different thread.

Logged

The ability to reason is a magnificant thing. The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

Let's forget for a minute that that is debatable. Following this line of logic we need to link North Korea, Syria, Iran, perhaps Pakistan to the world trade center attack along with many other countries.

I linked an attack on America to Aghanistan and Iraq because Iraq posed an imminent threat. I would be willing to bet that if it came out that we knew that the Afghan's were planning an attack on America and we didn't go over there and stop them, that people would be in an uproar. It's the same thing in Iraq. The "war" in Iraq is preventative measure. I put war in quotes because congress has yet to actually declare it a war..and that's a whole different thread.

If they pose an imminent threat..yes. Pakistan does not. Syria. nope. Iran..not likely since they stopped their production of WMDs (thanks to the war in Iraq). North Korea...yeah..I would say that they need to be dealt with in the same manner that Iraq was dealt with. Granted, I thinkt that we have learned a lot from Iraq in how to deal with how to oust a dictator that threatens to destroy us..but Kim Jong should be dealt with.

Logged

The ability to reason is a magnificant thing. The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

If they pose an imminent threat..yes. Pakistan does not. Syria. nope. Iran..not likely since they stopped their production of WMDs (thanks to the war in Iraq). North Korea...yeah..I would say that they need to be dealt with in the same manner that Iraq was dealt with. Granted, I thinkt that we have learned a lot from Iraq in how to deal with how to oust a dictator that threatens to destroy us..but Kim Jong should be dealt with.

Jeremy--Afghanistan: yes, they are harboring terrorists and we linked them to 9-11.Iraq: we have never proven that they now have WMD. I agree w/ the earlier post that even your conservative leader has conceded to that. We argued to the world that we had hard evidence that Iraq had WMD. It was a lie, plain and simple. Don't give me a speech either about the risks of faulty intelligence. Through our own foreign assessments, we have determined that the greatest risks, in terms of actual countries, are Iran and Libya. By your same logic, we should go in there and strike for "preventative measures."

It wasn't that Clinton didn't have the "balls" to go in (although I question that as being a reason for any military action.) it was that Republican leaders always have the audacity to go it alone. I like how you highlighted that in the early 90s, Iraq violated the UN Sanctions. So, let the UN take action. We have no basis for going it alone. NONE!

The question you need to ask yourself is do you feel safer now or before these military actions. I felt much safer before your conservative leader had the nerve to call our actions over there a crusade. Yeah, that's right...he did.

As a denizen of the world community, I suggest you stop and think a little more about the power of war and why so many Muslims and Middle Easterners in general hate us so much right now. Why? Because the military is our answer to every question...especially when a Republican is in office.

I am not saying I disagree w/ taking military action at any point in time. However, we live in a unique time in global history. We can develop international coalitions and work with the global community. Instead, the US takes the "go it alone" method because we think that we have the right or role to run the world. It is arrogant and embarassing.

Logged

W Bush: I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." In response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the first debate. Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

Jeremy, I feel bad for everyone's family who had someone close to them die on 9/11. They were 100% innocent and non-combatants. But honest to God...they US had it coming. The US has propped up puppet dictators all over the world. In Argentina, the US supported a horrible regime that killed over 30,000 ppl. In Chile 9,000 died to Pinochet. All over Latin America 100s of thousands of ppl have died. The Shah in Iran was one of the most horrible regimes. I could go on w/ countless examples. All of these regimes have one thing in common- they were all financed and supported by the US even though none of them were democratic. The US has supported the overthrow of many democratically elected leaders. In fact, when Saddam was first in power the CIA gave him a list of 5,000 names for his death squads to interrogate, which basically means torture and kill (this is from the New York Times...I don't have the name of the article or date). So when you use your figure of how many ppl Saddam killed please take into account that the US Gov't is not innocent either. The answer isn't to dwell on it, just learn your lesson.

The truth is that very few Americans die every year from terrorism, w/ 2001 as the exception. More Americans die annually from bee stings. More die while shoveling snow. I believe that it is less than 40 Americans die annually from terrorism. So to me, spending $92 billion+ (not including Afghanistan) to save 40 ppl is absurd, esp. when there is little proof that having a war in Iraq will actually make us any safer. In fact, it has probably made us more vulnerable and has definitely killed more Americans than if we were to have done nothing. My brother has been to Iraq twice now and everyday he was there I feared for his life. I am proud that he has done good deeds while there, but both of us still believe that they should've never been there in the first place. The war in Afghanistan, however, was 100% justified. If Bush wants to send 130,000 troops there to actually find those responsible for 9/11 so be it.

Also, thank you JJ for pointing out that Saddam had no connection w/ 9/11. It has gotten to the point where over 70% of the American ppl believe that the Bush admin. had to have a press conference and deny that connection.

I am not connecting Saddaam with 9/11. I never posted anything even close to doing so. Are you saying since past presidents and administration help fund some dictators, that George Bush is to continue doing the same thing and NOT deal with Saddaam? How many chances should Saddaam have received before someone finally stood up to him? I wouldn't trust anything the New York Times wrote..especially since their lead editor came out and admited to reporting a ton of news without ever substantiating the sources. They are just another National Enquirer to me. You're right on one thing..the US government may not be 100% fresh and clean..in comparison to Iraq. I'm sure some things have gone on behind the scenes that we don't know about...but that's just it. We don't know about them. Our troops DID find the mass graves of hundres of thousands of people that Saddaam killed. We have proven that. Can it be proven that the CIA told Saddaam to kill 5,000 people? Hardly. If everyone wants to stick to fact....let's stick to fact.

Logged

The ability to reason is a magnificant thing. The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.